Jump to content


Photo

Section 8 Defense To Jury


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 BirdHunter

BirdHunter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 04:06 PM

Just something I noticed....it seems that defendants are unable to argue a section 8 defense to a jury do to the "mutiple bites" doctrine. If a defendant attemtps a section 8 in a pretrial hearing and fails, the judge bars the use of a section 8 in trial due to "already have taken a bite from that apple".

Possible strategy....try your section 4 upon initial contact with law enforcement, if that fails an charges are brought, do not bring section 8 until at trial.

#2 Timmahh

Timmahh

    Silenced for Truths

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,483 posts
  • LocationIn your Mind

Posted 23 January 2012 - 06:07 PM

that is a current arguement being heard at the State Supreme Court Level RIGHT NOW. the King case was just heard last week.


Section 8 is only available at trial. Police are to follow Sec 4, anyone not within 4, then goes to jail and has the RIGHT, per the MMM Act to PRESENT a section 8 Defense AT Trial. So you see, you can not present a section 8 defense to the police, only a section 4, and that will only be usefull if you are within the limits of the Section Four Protections....


though you are correct, in that is what the AG and his staff are contending, Sec 8 allows multiple bits. but every trial is a new trial. thus sec 8 is relevent in every new case. if a case is passed thru circut to CoA, it was denied by the Circut judge, but is still allowable to the jury trial, or available to be a point of contention.

But that is the Act we passed. Sec 8 allows ANY PATIENT to use cannabis and present a section 8 defense should the need arise. Sec 8, also covers anyone that IS a registrant of the MMMP If the need arrises, and they were above and beyond the limits of the act, say they used 28 grams of cannabis and made a 8lb batch of brownies, that only has 28 grams of medical cannabis in it.

thus the Brownie weight is OVER the limit of 2.5 oz, but the actual weight of the medicine used is far less than the limit of 70grams (2.5 ounces) of ready to use medicine. So in this instance, someone can do 14 yrs for 8lbs of brownies with 28 grams of medicine contained in it.

2nd point. Pt has cancer, and is using cannabis oil in the amount of 3 grams of oil a day. it takes approximately 1 ounce of medical cannabis to create approximately 3 grams of of cannabis oil. So our Cancer Pt, can obtain 2.5 days of oil for use in their medical condition. Is it not reasonable to allow for a Patient, regardless of ailment, be allowed to have enough medical cannabis on hand to make oil. Oil can be made in a day. but is a long process, thus our Patient would have to continually make oil for their treatment. in terms of processing, it is vastly easier, and less expensive to process more oil per perduction run, but utilizing more material, in this case medical cannabis.

Do we limit Any other person, or company in the amount of useable product they can create at a given point in time? not that i am aware of.
So does it not make sence that it can be easily understood that some patient may indeed have a need for more than 2.5 ounces of medical cannabis on hand. when that 2.5 ounces only creates 2.5 days worth of Medicine.

Does it not further make sence that any patient should have the right to present these facts at any part of the court proceedings, regardless of when they have been presented, or previously presented? Especially in cases where a person is charged with having more than SUSPECTED Reasonably necessary?

The MMM Act clearly states the reason, need, and qualifications needed to present a Sec 8 Defense, at any point in a trial, to the judge, jury, or other proceedings relevent to the case at hand. It is not a double jeapordy situation as the AG is contending. As Reasonably Needed will vary by the facts of each individual case, thus the need for a blanket protection, but one that MUST BE PROVEN in a court of law, each step of the way thru its procedings. SO if it must be defended at each proceeding, then it must be allowed to be presented at each.

I contend the AG and his Office Know this, and it is a major driving factor to WHY he wants the Sec 8 defense completely eliminated from the Act, per his Revision of the Act presented in his 'Clearing the Air-Medical Marihuana Closed door meeting the end of last yr.

We simply can not allow this to happen. The AG is fighting very hard to strip those protections, and legislation is about to let him do it. YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP AND CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND EVERYONE in your district that their seat is on the line in November if they refute the Will of the People in this Matter.

Legislation and Senate will only start to care, when we heat up their political arse with calls, letters, visits, emails and questions regarding BS and the AG office attack.

#3 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:34 PM

that is a current argument being heard at the State Supreme Court Level RIGHT NOW. the King case was just heard last week.


Section 8 is only available at trial. Police are to follow Sec 4, anyone not within 4, then goes to jail and has the RIGHT, per the MMM Act to PRESENT a section 8 Defense AT Trial. So you see, you can not present a section 8 defense to the police, only a section 4, and that will only be usefully if you are within the limits of the Section Four Protections....


though you are correct, in that is what the AG and his staff are contending, Sec 8 allows multiple bits. but every trial is a new trial. thus sec 8 is relevant in every new case. if a case is passed thru circuit to CoA, it was denied by the Circuit judge, but is still allowable to the jury trial, or available to be a point of contention.

But that is the Act we passed. Sec 8 allows ANY PATIENT to use cannabis and present a section 8 defense should the need arise. Sec 8, also covers anyone that IS a registrant of the MMMP If the need arises, and they were above and beyond the limits of the act, say they used 28 grams of cannabis and made a 8lb batch of brownies, that only has 28 grams of medical cannabis in it.

thus the Brownie weight is OVER the limit of 2.5 oz, but the actual weight of the medicine used is far less than the limit of 70grams (2.5 ounces) of ready to use medicine. So in this instance, someone can do 14 yrs for 8lbs of brownies with 28 grams of medicine contained in it.

2nd point. Pt has cancer, and is using cannabis oil in the amount of 3 grams of oil a day. it takes approximately 1 ounce of medical cannabis to create approximately 3 grams of of cannabis oil. So our Cancer Pt, can obtain 2.5 days of oil for use in their medical condition. Is it not reasonable to allow for a Patient, regardless of ailment, be allowed to have enough medical cannabis on hand to make oil. Oil can be made in a day. but is a long process, thus our Patient would have to continually make oil for their treatment. in terms of processing, it is vastly easier, and less expensive to process more oil per perduction run, but utilizing more material, in this case medical cannabis.

Do we limit Any other person, or company in the amount of usable product they can create at a given point in time? not that i am aware of.
So does it not make since that it can be easily understood that some patient may indeed have a need for more than 2.5 ounces of medical cannabis on hand. when that 2.5 ounces only creates 2.5 days worth of Medicine.

Does it not further make sense that any patient should have the right to present these facts at any part of the court proceedings, regardless of when they have been presented, or previously presented? Especially in cases where a person is charged with having more than SUSPECTED Reasonably necessary?

The MMM Act clearly states the reason, need, and qualifications needed to present a Sec 8 Defense, at any point in a trial, to the judge, jury, or other proceedings relevant to the case at hand. It is not a double jeopardy situation as the AG is contending. As Reasonably Needed will vary by the facts of each individual case, thus the need for a blanket protection, but one that MUST BE PROVEN in a court of law, each step of the way thru its proceedings. SO if it must be defended at each proceeding, then it must be allowed to be presented at each.

I contend the AG and his Office Know this, and it is a major driving factor to WHY he wants the Sec 8 defense completely eliminated from the Act, per his Revision of the Act presented in his 'Clearing the Air-Medical Marihuana Closed door meeting the end of last yr.

We simply can not allow this to happen. The AG is fighting very hard to strip those protections, and legislation is about to let him do it. YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP AND CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND EVERYONE in your district that their seat is on the line in November if they refute the Will of the People in this Matter.

Legislation and Senate will only start to care, when we heat up their political arse with calls, letters, visits, emails and questions regarding BS and the AG office attack.


another great post
and we are right in the middle of it all us and Larry that is and you are right all the judges would have to do is watch the video of the person that wrot this Law
but their are other State's that have a MMJ Law and the AD and they are not being able to use it per the video

#4 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:37 PM

Their has been no one able to use the AD so far we hope to change that but now we are back in court and can't use the Law and we were under plants and locked up

#5 donnachris

donnachris

    Michigan Medical Marijuana Patient/Advanced Newbie Grower

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • LocationState of Confusion

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:15 AM

Their has been no one able to use the AD so far we hope to change that but now we are back in court and can't use the Law and we were under plants and locked up

Is your whole story in the forums some where?? I am very interested in what happened to you.

There is a fellow MMMA member that lives in the same city that I live in that was visited by LEO. All they wanted to know was how many cards he had and how many plants he had. His plants are locked up in a closet and a bedroom. LEO checked his cards, counted his plants, and told him to have a great day.

Edited by donnachris, 24 January 2012 - 05:23 PM.


#6 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:27 PM

Is your whole story in the forums some where?? I am very interested in what happened to you.


http://michiganmedic...__1#entry308168

and now we or us and the mm Lawyers can't even file a motion the PA wont let them

#7 BirdHunter

BirdHunter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 03:23 PM

http://michiganmedic...__1#entry308168

and now we or us and the mm Lawyers can't even file a motion the PA wont let them

Any motion at all? Or a motion to dismiss via section 8? On what grounds? On the multiple bites doctrine or the invalid 4 means invalid 8 argument?

#8 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 06:49 PM

Any motion at all? Or a motion to dismiss via section 8? On what grounds? On the multiple bites doctrine or the invalid 4 means invalid 8 argument?


We have been fighting for almost 3 years and are hopeful but dutiful

#9 BirdHunter

BirdHunter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:10 PM

We have been fighting for almost 3 years and are hopeful but dutiful


I know, I've been following your case the whole way. I'm just trying to figure out how someone, anyone can end up presenting a section 8 to a jury.

The only way I can think of is to NOT bring a section 8 argument as a motion to dismiss. Once you bring it up in a motion and it fails, you are toast, as you found out so harshly. They won't let you bring it up to the jury. The only way out of this is to have a jury decide is to forgo the motion to dismiss and use the section 8 directly in trial.

#10 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:03 PM

I know, I've been following your case the whole way. I'm just trying to figure out how someone, anyone can end up presenting a section 8 to a jury.

The only way I can think of is to NOT bring a section 8 argument as a motion to dismiss. Once you bring it up in a motion and it fails, you are toast, as you found out so harshly. They won't let you bring it up to the jury. The only way out of this is to have a jury decide is to forgo the motion to dismiss and use the section 8 directly in trial.


In Oakland county, I watched a judge ORDER a motion to be filed so they could deny the defense.

#11 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:40 PM

In Oakland county, I watched a judge ORDER a motion to be filed so they could deny the defense.


to be able to use trickery?

#12 rockinlespaul

rockinlespaul

    "THE O.G."

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:42 PM

My son was pulled over a few weeks ago and he had medicine with him. He is expired and had not renewed his card though. The cop gave him a ticket. He went to court and they said if he went and got his recommend before his next date they will dismiss. Until then he has to drop.

This was in Milford, so Oakland Co.

I guess he's very lucky.....

#13 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 09:35 PM

My son was pulled over a few weeks ago and he had medicine with him. He is expired and had not renewed his card though. The cop gave him a ticket. He went to court and they said if he went and got his recommend before his next date they will dismiss. Until then he has to drop.

This was in Milford, so Oakland Co.

I guess he's very lucky.....


i think thats the way the Law should work it's sad he has to drop($$$ for the city) but he should make it out of this OK
and yes luck had some play in it

#14 rockinlespaul

rockinlespaul

    "THE O.G."

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:06 PM

i think thats the way the Law should work it's sad he has to drop($$$ for the city) but he should make it out of this OK
and yes luck had some play in it


12 bucks a drop IF your clean. Dirty? Its over 20 bucks a drop.

Oh...and he had 4 pain pills too. That was NEVER mentioned.

The cop kept those for himself!!!!!!

#15 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:28 PM

12 bucks a drop IF your clean. Dirty? Its over 20 bucks a drop.

Oh...and he had 4 pain pills too. That was NEVER mentioned.

The cop kept those for himself!!!!!!


then he was very lucky the pill's would get you lots of time in jail just one of them

#16 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:31 PM

12 bucks a drop IF your clean. Dirty? Its over 20 bucks a drop.

Oh...and he had 4 pain pills too. That was NEVER mentioned.

The cop kept those for himself!!!!!!


when we got raided they found 300 OX's in my house because i was not taking them i used Marihuana but the cops took the Marihuana and left all the pill's

#17 donnachris

donnachris

    Michigan Medical Marijuana Patient/Advanced Newbie Grower

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • LocationState of Confusion

Posted 26 January 2012 - 11:25 AM

Is your whole story in the forums some where?? I am very interested in what happened to you.



http://michiganmedic...__1#entry308168

and now we or us and the mm Lawyers can't even file a motion the PA wont let them


This only shows one motion. Where can I find other information about your case?? I've searched the internet and can't find anything.

#18 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 02:44 PM

This only shows one motion. Where can I find other information about your case?? I've searched the internet and can't find anything.


http://michiganmedic...__1#entry321064
here you go
am not sure if it will help you

#19 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 02:48 PM

Madison Heights -- The doctor who certified two Madison Heights residents as medical marijuana patients under Michigan's new law has been ordered to testify in their criminal case.

Judge Robert J. Turner of the 43rd District Court signed an order today requiring Dr. Eric Eisenbud to appear in court on May 27 to answer questions about a document he signed that gives medical authorization to Torey A. Clark and Robert Redden to possess marijuana for medical purposes.

Eisenbud, an ophthalmologist who works for the Hemp and Cannabis Foundation's medical clinic in Southfield, signed the authorization on March 4, three weeks before Madison Heights police used a battering ram to break down the front door of Redden and Clark's home and remove 21 marijuana plants.



The couple has been charged with illegally growing the plants and faces up to 14 years in prison.

Assistant Oakland County Beth Hand asked the judge for Clark's and Redden's medical records, saying she needed the basis for the "bona-fide" patient-physician relationship as described in the state law.

"Was there a relationship or did they walk into a door, pay a few hundred bucks and get this paper?" Hand said.

Turner denied the request but did take into evidence copies of the couple's state-issued ID cards, which are issued by the Department of Community Health for physician-certified patients.

Turner told Hand his interpretation of the law, which has been widely criticized by legal observers as being poorly written and vague.

"It says it's a matter of one doctor testifying and charges shall be dismissed," Turner said.

The couple did not have the cards at the time of the March 30 raid. Their attorneys claim the state law and its protections went into effect on Dec. 4 and the couple should not be charged in the case.



#20 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,112 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 03:22 PM

Madison Heights -- The doctor who certified two Madison Heights residents as medical marijuana patients under Michigan's new law has been ordered to testify in their criminal case.

Judge Robert J. Turner of the 43rd District Court signed an order today requiring Dr. Eric Eisenbud to appear in court on May 27 to answer questions about a document he signed that gives medical authorization to Torey A. Clark and Robert Redden to possess marijuana for medical purposes.

Eisenbud, an ophthalmologist who works for the Hemp and Cannabis Foundation's medical clinic in Southfield, signed the authorization on March 4, three weeks before Madison Heights police used a battering ram to break down the front door of Redden and Clark's home and remove 21 marijuana plants.



The couple has been charged with illegally growing the plants and faces up to 14 years in prison.

Assistant Oakland County Beth Hand asked the judge for Clark's and Redden's medical records, saying she needed the basis for the "bona-fide" patient-physician relationship as described in the state law.

"Was there a relationship or did they walk into a door, pay a few hundred bucks and get this paper?" Hand said.

Turner denied the request but did take into evidence copies of the couple's state-issued ID cards, which are issued by the Department of Community Health for physician-certified patients.

Turner told Hand his interpretation of the law, which has been widely criticized by legal observers as being poorly written and vague.

"It says it's a matter of one doctor testifying and charges shall be dismissed," Turner said.

The couple did not have the cards at the time of the March 30 raid. Their attorneys claim the state law and its protections went into effect on Dec. 4 and the couple should not be charged in the case.




if only we had known then what we know today things would of worked out better for us we didn't know then that we were not going to be able to use are cards in court but we will keep fighting

but to the new people that come here if you get raided and have to go to court YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE YOUR CARD that is the way it is no matter who you get for a Lawyer

IMHO save your money




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users